As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Sunday, May 06, 2012

What Do They Want?

The September 11th Advocates (essentially the Jersey Girls minus Kristen Breitweiser plus Monica Gabrielle) release a statement on the upcoming tribunal of KSM and four others:

It would seem that the U.S. Government found itself in a conundrum when they allowed prisoners, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), to be tortured in secret prisons around the world. Once tortured, any confession or testimony from KSM, or others, could not be deemed reliable. Furthermore, the focus of the eventual proceedings would become a trial about the practice of torture, instead of being a trial about alleged terrorist crimes. That would have been untenable for the U.S. Government, which wants to avoid any and all accountability for their own crimes of torture.

In order to bypass potential discussion of torture, the latest Chief Prosecutor for the Military Commissions, Brig. General Mark Martins, found a willing witness in Majid Khan, a fellow GITMO inmate to KSM. Khan himself was not involved in the 9/11 plot. He supposedly got his information from time spent behind bars at GITMO with KSM. Kahn (sic) will be allowed to give this hearsay evidence against KSM in return for a reduced sentence. However, Khan’s sentencing won’t take place for four years. It seems the Prosecution is pinning their hopes and dreams on Khan’s upcoming performance. None of this lends credibility to an already suspect system.

Additionally, with campaigning for the upcoming Presidential elections heating up, the timing of this latest attempt at justice for 9/11 is exploitive (sic) at best.

First of all, why the focus on the supposed torture of KSM and others? KSM admitted his role in the 9-11 attacks before he was captured. Second, Casazza, Kleinberg, et.al., appear not to understand the meaning of the term "hearsay evidence". Admissions made to a fellow prisoner are not hearsay. It is when the admissions discuss third parties that it becomes inadmissible as evidence. If, for example, KSM confessed his part in the 9-11 attacks to Khan, that would be perfectly acceptable as evidence. On the other hand, if KSM told Khan that Ramzi bin-al-Shibh was the paymaster for the attacks, that would not be admissible.

More important is the third issue. Are the September 11th Advocates so wedded to the idea that KSM and his co-conspirators should be tried in a US court that they would be willing to accept the possibility of him being set free? I certainly am not.

Pat, for your information that KSM admitted to the 9/11 attacks before capture you are relying on the self-serving assertions of a journalist who lied about the very interview you cite. He has produced no tapes to corroborate his claims.

Waterboarding KSM 183 times was not "supposed torture"--it was torture. Ask Christopher Hitchens, who lasted 15 seconds, and Mancow Muller, who lasted 6.

Your concern that a fair trial might wind up setting KSM free seems to reflect a lack of confidence in the government's case. So why would you assert the principle that it's preferable to have a phony trial and keep KSM in jail than it is to have a fair trial and prove his guilt?

MGF, to suggest that they wait for the verdict to complain is simple-minded.A flawed process is as objectionable as a flawed verdict. The testimony of someone who is trying to buy his way out of jail with it is inherently suspect.

If they did wait for the verdict before they complained, then you'd say they should have brought up their complaint earlier.

"They will get a fairer trial than their victims did" assumes guilt, and it is lynch mob mentality.

If you read the title of their statement (which you neglected to post here), you would see that it says, "Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals ... No Justice for 9/11 Victims Found Here"

Ya know? I think they might just want justice for what happened to their loved ones. Something that won't be found at GITMO.

Seriously, Jon. What does "justice" mean? A $25 fine? Execution? What does it mean?

And what makes the attitudes of your friends important, when tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors do not object to the tribunal form of justice? You probably lack the integrity to answer that question.

Tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors keep silent because they accepted the implicit deal: you take the money (average payout, 1.5 million per victim) and you count your blessings and keep your mouth shut.

Tens of thousands of other 9/11 survivors keep silent because they accepted the implicit deal: you take the money (average payout, 1.5 million per victim) and you count your blessings and keep your mouth shut.

Hey, if a paranoid lunatic unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State say it, it must be true!

I would much prefer a civilian trial for KSM. It worked for Ramzi Yousef, and it worked for Timothy McVeigh, both notorious terrorists and murderers.

I wouldn't object to a civilian trial either. I'm pretty sure the key reason for avoiding one is to keep classified info out of the public record. The government can get the benefit of relaxed rules of evidence in a tribunal, but a competent defense has plenty to work with.

Informative comparison of defendants' rights in civilian court and tribunals here. Interesting factoid: if you're convicted by a tribunal you can appeal to the tribunal itself, and then appeal to the DC Circuit and finally to the Supreme Court. That's an extra appeal that civilians in federal court don't get.

Informative comparison of defendants' rights in civilian court and tribunals here. Interesting factoid: if you're convicted by a tribunal you can appeal to the tribunal itself, and then appeal to the DC Circuit and finally to the Supreme Court. That's an extra appeal that civilians in federal court don't get.

As long as it is fair and follows Constitutional guidelines. I worry about a lynch mob mentality that could take over in a case like this. That's all.

No it's not. Yosri Fouda's interviews with KSM and Binalshibh is discussed on pages 284 - 6 and the authors said no such thing. They described him as a "brave journalist". Here are the most relevant excerpts from their account:

-----------------------------------THERE IS, however, a measure of considerable consolation [with the version KSM during interrogation]. Long before they were caught, KSM and a fellow operative freely volunteered much the same version of events to an Arab television journalist. The scoop of a lifetime had come to Yosri Fouda…

[…]

After prayers together the following morning, the two men shared their version of the preparation and execution of 9/11. Their accounts largely match the version subsequently extracted from KSM by the CIA. Binalshibh pulled from an old suitcase dozens of mementos of the operation: information on Boeing airplanes, a navigation map of the American East Coast, illustrations on “How to perform sudden maneuvers” — a page covered in notations made, Binalshibh said, by the hijackers’ leader, Mohamed Atta.

Unaccountably, 9/11 Commission staff failed to interview Fouda and mentioned his breakthrough interview only in an obscure footnote. It was included, however, in evidence presented during the military tribunal proceedings at Guantánamo. Two distinguished award-winning reporters, The Wall Street Journal’s Ron Suskind and CNN contributor Peter Bergen, who both interviewed Yosri Fouda, found his reporting of the Karachi encounter authentic and compelling.-----------------------------------

Nowhere did they even hint that they thought Fouda had been less than truthful, quite the contrary they cited it as confirmation of KSM’s statements to the CIA.

Lying (making up facts) like this is really sleazy and on a site like this one dumb. Perhaps you can get away doing so on truther sites but most commenters here a reasonably were informed about 9/11 and check facts.

Maybe if you'd learn to google, your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar.

LOL this coming from someone who makes up facts and is considered “so peculiar” by both truthers and debunkers.

I see that your thorough research didn't extend to the endnotes. They said that he lied. Maybe if you'd learn to google your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar, and maybe if you'd check your facts a little more carefully you wouldn't be so quick to accuse people who know what they're talking about of lying when you don't know what you're talking about.

You know what's a really underrated album? "Adventure" by Television. Everyone (rightly) commends "Marquee Moon" for being one of the all-time great albums, but "Adventure" is fantastic as well and deserves more recognition, IMHO.

Ian I have a vinyl bootleg of them while Richard Hell was in the band, it includes some demos they did with Brian Eno and some live tracks at CB’s. Though the audio quality is not very good I like better than either studio album, the highlight is “Blank Generation” with Verlaine and Lloyd’s guitar work. The funny thing is I bought it decades ago at Bleecker Bob’s days after reading that this line up never recorded! I imagine you can find these recordings on the Net.

I see that your thorough research didn't extend to the endnotes. They said that he lied. Maybe if you'd learn to google your opinions wouldn't be so peculiar, and maybe if you'd check your facts a little more carefully you wouldn't be so quick to accuse people who know what they're talking about of lying when you don't know what you're talking about.

Bullshit they said no such thing in the text or endnotes, you're a liar or deluded or both. Why would they bury such a key finding in their notes

"Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax or whatever-the people that I met then and the people who were around them, they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people.

So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communique because it alluded to the interview taking place in May."

There is no lying about the interview, only the date, and for very good reasons. There's a reason it ended up as an endnote in the book. It doesn't compromise Fouda's version in the least.

Let's not forget that KSM also confessed in 2008 with no waterboards in sight.

Let's not lose sight that confessions themselves don't mean crap unless there is corroborating evidence. A couple hundred confessions have been made in the Jon-Benet Ramsey case, yet none of them have been charged. I'm sure the govt has a boatload of evidence corroborating his confessions on those laptops they confiscated, but I'm going to wait for this to be played out in court.

Point being, he lied about his article and he lied in his article. His blather about why he needed to lie makes no sense. There would be any number of references other than the date that would help to establish "guilty knowledge" of anonymous communicators.

Lying in journalism is unforgivable. His reports are not trustworthy. We have no reason to trust anything he says about the meeting he claims he had, and for Pat to leave the fact that Fouda is a liar out of his writeup is dishonest.

"No waterboards in sight" is certainly a disingenuous claim. Tell me, does the US government still have custody of KSM's wife and kids?

The discussion of Television makes me wonder what other bands out there have a second great album that is overshadowed by the more well-known or critically-acclaimed record. Nirvana jumps to mind immediately, as I've long felt that "Nevermind" was too polished, and that "In Utero" is really the sound they always wanted.

Also, there's no justice in the music world sometimes. If you added up all the albums released by Television, Mission of Burma, Jane's Addiction, and the Pixies (not counting lame reunion albums), it still doesn't add up to all the records released by Nickelback.

Point being, he lied about his article and he lied in his article. His blather about why he needed to lie makes no sense. There would be any number of references other than the date that would help to establish "guilty knowledge" of anonymous communicators.

Lying in journalism is unforgivable. His reports are not trustworthy. We have no reason to trust anything he says about the meeting he claims he had, and for Pat to leave the fact that Fouda is a liar out of his writeup is dishonest.

So say’s an unemployed former janitor whose views are shared by:

Chaim Kupferberg (possibly a pseudonym), a blogger whose writings sometimes appears on CT site like Global Research, and

But apparently no journalists, historians or terrorism experts. On the other hand his account was accepted by:

Anthony Summers, a veteran journalist, just nominated for a Pulitzer; Ron Suskind veteran journalist Pulizer prize winner formerly senior national affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal now a visiting scholar at Dartmouth

Peter Bergen veteran journalist, winner of several awards and author of several AQ related books.

CNN

Among others.

The is an audiotape of the Binalshibh interview and I believe of the KSM one as well.

If Pat "leav[ing] the fact that Fouda" gave an incorrect date "out of his writeup is dishonest" what does that make BG who failed to mention the fact there is no evidence any of his other claims are incorrect?

Fouda admitted he lied in his article. His explanation of why he lied does not make sense. Please cite the section in the code of journalistic ethics where it says it's ok to lie.

Summers points out that the 9/11 Commission did not cite Fouda's work. So gee, I guess the 9/11 Commission did not find it credible.

James Drummond wrote in Financial Times: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’”

Fouda admitted he lied in his article. His explanation of why he lied does not make sense. Please cite the section in the code of journalistic ethics where it says it's ok to lie.

Summers points out that the 9/11 Commission did not cite Fouda's work. So gee, I guess the 9/11 Commission did not find it credible.

James Drummond wrote in Financial Times: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’”

- Fouda's explanation does make sense to you. Get back to us with a journalist, historian or terrorism expert who questions it

- There could be various reasons for the 9/11 C. not citing the interview. Most of what KSM said in it he told the CIA.

Fouda's explanation does not make sense on its face. There are many tags he could use to verify the authenticity of the correspondence that would not require him to lie in his article. He lied and he admitted he lied. There is no reason to believe him.

James Drummond wrote in Financial Times: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’”

That's a c&p from history commons and not what the Finacial Times article says. You'll notice you can't access the article through historycommons. It's BS that Paul Thompson made up. Nowhere in the article does it state that Foudra had some highly questionable tapes. The tapes they are talking about refer to this part of the article:'Doubts were voiced yesterday about the authenticity of videos broadcast by al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite television channel, which appeared to confirm that the al-Qaeda terrorist network was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the US.

The three videos, broadcast on Monday, showed some of the September 11 hijackers and one contained what the broadcaster said was the voice of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, claiming direct responsibility for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If genuine, the video would be the first time that Mr bin Laden has directly claimed direct responsibility for any of the bombings. In a tape obtained by US forces in Afghanistan last year, Mr bin Laden was heard telling followers about "calculations" to hit a tower - which many presumed to the World Trade Center - but there was no direct claim of responsibility.

But analysts cited the crude editing of the tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. The scepticism was deepened by al-Jazeera's silence yesterday about how it had obtained the videos."

That's why Paul Thompson is not a journalist and never will be. Foudra was a respected journalist, a gumshoe in the tradition of Steve Coll and Terry McDermott, before 9/11, and continues to be one afterwards. Because he upsets your fantasy, you'll go to any length to poison the well.

Take it up with Paul Thompson. Perhaps the amazonaws text is not the actual text of the article, and perhaps Thomson got mixed up and cited the title of the wrong article.

Quibbling about the criticisms is just a distraction. The fact remains that Fouda lied in his article, he lied about his article, and his explanation of why he lied smells like a lie itself. Y'all are citing an extremely unreliable report as the source for your claim that KSM confessed in 2002 to 9/11.

I don't have time. I trust Paul Thompson. I don't trust the claims of anonymous internet posters. Maybe he made a mistake. It's a trivial point not worth checking. The real point is that since Fouda is a liar, his story is under a cloud. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

The discrepancy was NOT for a legitimate purpose. Fouda claimed that knowledge of the discrepancy was to serve as a tag for who was there. He could have used something else for a tag--something that wouldn't require him to lie in his new article.

The way you guys bend over backwards to defend liars while you're lawyering for the prosecution is very telling.

Like a picture on the wall, a palm tree outside, the color of the rug, the identity of the other participants, something that went on in the conversation, what kind of tea they drank, what the small talk was about, and unusual ceiling fan, what brand of cigarettes KSM smokes.

Oh, an anonymous internet poster authenticated the document. I see you went to the Kevin Barrett college of scholarship.

Speaking of which, has anyone authenticated the list of "questions" from "widows" that Brian constantly posts? I mean, Brian is a known liar, so there's no reason to believe that the widows have questions.

Since Fouda is a liar there is no need to question his account. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he knows KSM freely admitted his role in masterminding 9/11, and that destroys his delusions about magic thermite sprayed on the towers by members of the Bush administration.

You don't know what duress KSM was under. You make this shit up.

Squeal squeal squeal!

I don't have time. I trust Paul Thompson. I don't trust the claims of anonymous internet posters. Maybe he made a mistake. It's a trivial point not worth checking. The real point is that since Fouda is a liar, his story is under a cloud. It is illegitimate on its face. He lied in the article, he lied about the article, and it looks like he lied about his lies.

Nobody cares who you trust. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and was expelled from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

Len, I already did cite a journalist: James Drummond in Financial Times.

tj, Foudra's lie was not at all legitimate. There was no reason for it and his bogus explanation suggests that he lied about the lie.

There is no reason to believe that the amazonawes text is genuine.

You cited the Drummond article it is up to you to establish it says what you claim. Based on the online text it does not, according to texasjack it does not and unfortunately for you the text was posted on a forum for Muslims 2 days after it was published in the FT. It would be easy for you to show the Amazon text is fake, all you have to do is visit a decent library.

If he wanted to use the ceiling fan as an indicator, he'd just leave it out of the story.

Many others would have access to details like ceiling fans, palm trees, KSM's cigarettes, etc. The tag needs to be something that only those present would know. You don't seem to understand how this works.

And you still haven't explained why journalists are permitted to lie, except in the sole and unique case of Yosri Fouda.

Sorry Pat, my mistake. You know as well as I that only 9% of the widows' questions were answered, so your tolerance of Ian's lies on this point is a mystery to me.

Actually, Brian, nobody knows this, because you have yet to present any evidence that the widows have questions, and given that you're a delusional sex predator, it wouldn't surprise me if you made things up about these "widows" because you're stalking them.

Ian, I've attended several meetings of the Truth Alliance in the last few years. Only one person questioned my standing to attend and he got silence for an answer. I rarely attend because it's a 50-mile drive one way.

Ian, I've attended several meetings of the Truth Alliance in the last few years. Only one person questioned my standing to attend and he got silence for an answer. I rarely attend because it's a 50-mile drive one way.

That's right. You have no job and thus can't afford gas, and your broken-down Volkswagen Beetle would just die on the Bay Bridge anyway.

I guess you like sitting around watching men in pajamas scratch their balls, huh?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so many times, and this is the best he can come up with in response. Brian wears women's underwear and was banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team (i.e. underage girls), so this is his feeble response.

I guess that's all he can do when he still hasn't presented a single question asked by the widows. Not one.

That's my point, Ian. Nobody cares. Pat writes that KSM had confessed to 9/11 and doesn't mention the fact that the journalist who wrote the report is a liar and admitted that he lied in the report. And nobody cares about Fouda's dishonesty or Pat's.

That's my point, Ian. Nobody cares. Pat writes that KSM had confessed to 9/11 and doesn't mention the fact that the journalist who wrote the report is a liar and admitted that he lied in the report. And nobody cares about Fouda's dishonesty or Pat's.

Yup, nobody cares, because we're all smart and successful and don't waste our time on a loony conspiracy theory.

You care because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor and you're desperately looking for something to give meaning to your wasted life, so you cling to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

And that's why, no matter how many times you paste the link to the widows questions, I can still say "the widows have no questions". Nobody cares about the widows.

“Len, the end notes to "The Eleventh Day" report that Fouda admitted that he lied in his report.”

That was NOT my question. He initially lied about the date and gave his reasons. Get back to us when you can name a single journalist, historian or terrorism expert who thinks this casts his account into doubt. Do you think Fouda never interviewed KSM or that he did but lied about what he said? In either case why would he lie about the date?

I see no indication that Suskind or Bergen even knew that Fouda had lied--let alone accepted it.

We give journalists the benefit of the doubt. When they say that an anonymous source told them something, we believe it. That's what makes it shocking when a journalist lies, let alone admits so casually to it.

I see no indication that Suskind or Bergen even knew that Fouda had lied--let alone accepted it.

2008: Bergen cited Fouda's interview and gave the date as "April 2002" thus he must have been aware of the latter's 'lie'

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.bergen.html

We give journalists the benefit of the doubt. When they say that an anonymous source told them something, we believe it. That's what makes it shocking when a journalist lies, let alone admits so casually to it.

Fouda has no credibility.

Still waiting for you name a journalist or historian who feels the same way. I'm only aware of , Thompson, Kupferberg and you. Only the former is remotely credible but be isn't a journalist or a historian and misquoted an article on this topic.

Bergen's book is dated 2011. Probably his research on Fouda's story is based on Fouda's 2003 book. Did Fousa admit in that book that he had lied, or did he just report as if it were a fact that his alleged interview took place in April?

Where do you get your belief that journalistic culture permits lying?The code of ethics of The Society of Professional Journalists starts out:

"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information . . . . Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

” Bergen's book is dated 2011. Probably his research on Fouda's story is based on Fouda's 2003 book. Did Fousa admit in that book that he had lied, or did he just report as if it were a fact that his alleged interview took place in April?”

AQ terrorism has long been one of Bergen’s primary areas of interest and expertise. He interviewed OBL in 1997 and Holy War was published Nov.7, 2001 so obviously he did most of the writing and research before 9/11. The KSM interview was one of the most important AQ related stories, it was reported by many media outlets including his employer CNN and the charge by Islamists that he’d set Binalshibh was news as well. It is unlikely he was not aware Fouda had originally said the interview occurred in June.

Where do you get your belief that journalistic culture permits lying?The code of ethics of The Society of Professional Journalists starts out:

"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information . . . . Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Why don’t you contact the SPJ and send them a link to the interview where he said he lied and ask them for comment.

You have no idea what the context of the April to June period was, so you have no idea what made the discrepancy important.

Why should I dignify a distraction with discussion that will only get buried in spam? The point is that Fouda lied and so his credibility is nil. You guys try to claim it's okay for journalists to lie--and thus that it's okay for you to lie.

Why should I dignify a distraction with discussion that will only get buried in spam? The point is that Fouda lied and so his credibility is nil. You guys try to claim it's okay for journalists to lie--and thus that it's okay for you to lie.

Fouda has no credibility with you, but nobody cares because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor.

To the rest of us (normal, intelligent, successful), Fouda has credibility, which is what matters.

Fouda wrote an article that lied. You argue that he has credibility. He has no credibility and you have no credibility.

We did not have honest investigations. The 9/11 Commissioners admit that they allowed NORAD to lie to them. Condi Rice was allowed to perjure herself--and Zelikow ran interference for her in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The NIST reports failed to fulfil their stated objective of explaining "why and how" the buildings collapsed. They did not even try to explain how. Thus their claims about "why" have no weight.

There will be investigations in the future. There's no stopping that. Computer modeling of the mysteries of the WTC collapses will become a very popular subject for Master's theses and PhD dissertations in the future.